When is a life too costly to save? : evidence from U.S. environmental regulations

Except for two relatively minor statutes, U.S. environmental laws do not permit the balancing of costs and benefits in setting environmental standards. The Clean Air Act, for example, prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in setting ambient air quality standards. Similarly, the Clean Water Act does not allow consideration of benefits in setting effluent standards. When the EPA is allowed to balance benefits against costs, it has considerable discretion in defining"balancing."The authors ask two questions: Whether allowed to or not, has the EPA balanced costs and benefits in setting environmental standards? Where has the EPA drawn the line in deciding how much to spend to save a statistical life? Their answers are based on data about the costs and benefits of regulations involving three classes of pollutants: cancer-causing pesticides usedon food crops (1975-89); carcinogenic air pollutants (1975-90); and all uses of asbestos regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The following are their findings. The EPA behaved as though it were balancing costs and benefits in its regulation of pesticides under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and of asbestos under Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the two so-called balancing statutes. The higher the cost of the ban, the less likely the EPA was to ban the use of these products. The greater the number of lives saved, the more likely the EPA was to ban their use. But the amount the EPA was (implicitly) willing to spend to save a life was high: $52 million to prevent cancer among pesticide applicators, and$49 million to avoid cancer through exposure to asbestos. The value the EPA attached to saving a life was higher for workers than for consumers. The value attached to avoiding a case of cancer through exposure to pesticide resides on food was less than $100,000, in contrast with the$52 million value of preventing cancer among pesticide applicators - perhaps because workers are exposed to higher levels of pollution than consumers. After 1987, when the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the EPA for considering costs in setting emissions standards for vinyl chloride, the EPA considered costs in setting emissions standards only after an acceptable level of risk was achieved. Ironically, before the vinyl chloride decision, the value per cancer case avoided was only $15 million. The amount the EPA was willing to spend to save a life was thus less under the Clean Air Act than under the balancing statutes. But after this decision, the EPA did not consider costs at all if the risk of cancer to the maximally exposed individual was above one in 10,000.Environmental Economics&Policies,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Economic Theory&Research,Health Economics&Finance,Montreal Protocol

The value of superfund cleanups : evidence from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decisions

Under the Superfund law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for inspecting hazardous waste sites and for putting those with the most serious contamination problems on a national priorities list. The EPA then oversees the cleanup of these sites, suing potentially responsible parties for the costs of cleanup when possible, and funding the cleanup of"orphaned"sites out of the Superfund, money raised taxing chemical and petroleum products. The Superfund program is controversial. Cleanups are costly and it is unclear whether the benefits of cleanup, especially the relative benefits of more permanent clenanup, are worth the costs. At many sites, imminent danger of exposure to contaminants can be removed at low cost. What raises the cost of cleanup is the decision to clean up the site for future generations - to incinerate contaminated soil, for example, or to pump and treat an aquifer for 30 years. To shed light on this debate, the authors infer the EPA's willingness to pay (or have others pay) for more permanent cleanups at Superfund sites. They do so by analyzing cleanup decisions for contaminated soils at 110 Superfund sites. They find that, other things being equal, the EPA was more likely to choose less expensive cleanup options. But, holding costs constant, the EPA was more likely to select more permanent options, such as incinerating the soil instead of capping it or putting it in a landfill. The EPA was willing to pay at least twice as much for onsite incineration of contaminated soil as it was for capping the soil. Has the EPA chosen more permanent Superfund cleanups in areas where residents are predominantly white and have high incomes? The authors find no evidence that the percentage of minority residents near a site influences the choice of cleanup selected. But offsite treatment was more likely at sites with higher incomes.General Technology,Environmental Governance,Sanitation and Sewerage,TF030632-DANISH CTF - FY05 (DAC PART COUNTRIES GNP PER CAPITA BELOW USD 2,500/AL,Environmental Economics&Policies

Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Data to Estimate the Nonmarket Value of Ecological Services: An Assessment of the State of the Science

This paper reviews the marketing, transportation, and environmental economics literature on the joint estimation of revealed and stated preference data. The revealed preference and stated preference approaches are first described with a focus on the strengths and weaknesses of each. Recognizing these strengths and weaknesses, the potential gains from combining data are described. A classification system for combined data that emphasizes the type of data combination and the econometric models used is proposed. A methodological review of the literature is pursued based on this classification system. Examples from the environmental economics literature are highlighted. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each type of jointly estimated model is then presented. Suggestions for future research, in particular opportunities for application of these models to environmental quality valuation, are presented.Nonmarket Valuation, Revealed Preference, Stated Preference

Open-label randomized trial of titrated disease management for patients with hypertension: Study design and baseline sample characteristics

Despite the availability of efficacious treatments, only half of patients with hypertension achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. This paper describes the protocol and baseline subject characteristics of a 2-arm, 18-month randomized clinical trial of titrated disease management (TDM) for patients with pharmaceutically-treated hypertension for whom systolic blood pressure (SBP) is not controlled (≥140mmHg for non-diabetic or ≥130mmHg for diabetic patients). The trial is being conducted among patients of four clinic locations associated with a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. An intervention arm has a TDM strategy in which patients' hypertension control at baseline, 6, and 12 months determines the resource intensity of disease management. Intensity levels include: a low-intensity strategy utilizing a licensed practical nurse to provide bi-monthly, non-tailored behavioral support calls to patients whose SBP comes under control; medium-intensity strategy utilizing a registered nurse to provide monthly tailored behavioral support telephone calls plus home BP monitoring; and high-intensity strategy utilizing a pharmacist to provide monthly tailored behavioral support telephone calls, home BP monitoring, and pharmacist-directed medication management. Control arm patients receive the low-intensity strategy regardless of BP control. The primary outcome is SBP. There are 385 randomized (192 intervention; 193 control) veterans that are predominately older (mean age 63.5 years) men (92.5%). 61.8% are African American, and the mean baseline SBP for all subjects is 143.6mmHg. This trial will determine if a disease management program that is titrated by matching the intensity of resources to patients' BP control leads to superior outcomes compared to a low-intensity management strategy

Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies. In this paper we review the existing evidence on ancillary health benefits relating to air pollution from various GHG strategies and provide a framework for such analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluate techniques used in different stages of such research for estimation of: (1) changes in air pollutant concentrations; (2) avoided adverse health endpoints; and (3) economic valuation of health consequences. The limitations and merits of various methods are examined. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for ancillary benefits analysis and related research gaps in the relevant disciplines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that to date most assessments have focused their analysis more heavily on one aspect of the framework (e.g., economic analysis). While a wide range of methods was applied to various policies and regions, results from multiple studies provide strong evidence that the short-term public health and economic benefits of ancillary benefits related to GHG mitigation strategies are substantial. Further, results of these analyses are likely to be underestimates because there are a number of important unquantified health and economic endpoints.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Remaining challenges include integrating the understanding of the relative toxicity of particulate matter by components or sources, developing better estimates of public health and environmental impacts on selected sub-populations, and devising new methods for evaluating heretofore unquantified and non-monetized benefits.</p

Household Behavior under Alternative Pay-as-You-Throw Systems for Solid Waste Disposal

In 1994, residents of Marietta, Georgia, participated in a pay-as-you-throw solid waste demonstration project. Rather than pay a fixed monthly fee for collection, half of the residents paid a fee per reusable trash can, and half paid for each nonreusable trash bag collected. Data from both a sample of households and citywide totals indicate that the programs significantly reduced waste set-outs, even after accounting for increases in (unpriced) recycling. The bag program caused larger reductions (36%) than the subscription can program (14%). Rough estimates of the program indicate both savings for residents and social welfare increases.

Compensating for Public Harms: Why Public Goods Are Preferred to Money

This paper provides evidence that public goods represent a more acceptable response to public harms than monetary compensation. We demonstrate a preference for public goods over monetary compensation, in part because receipt of public goods may limit the sense of guilt or bribery from accepting compensation for the injury. More surprising, this preference for public goods over money in the presence of a harm remains in a free-market choice where guilt is not an issue. It appears that public goods psychologically mitigate or balance public harms in a way that makes them more valuable in the presence of public harms.

Benefit Transfer Functions for Avoided Morbidity: A Preference Calibration Approach

Preference calibration has been proposed as a method for improving benefit transfers (Smith et al., 2002). The objective of this method is to develop a WTP function that can be used to predict individuals’ values for a wide range of quality changes. The analyst’s specification of preferences determines the form of this WTP function, and existing empirical studies provide the information that is needed to identify values for its parameters. The purpose of this paper is to explore and illustrate how the logic of preference calibration can be applied in the area of morbidity valuation. Using relatively simple functional forms for utility, we consider both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) illness. To identify values for key preference parameters, we combine information about WTP, health indexes, income, and, in some cases, duration of illness. We then use the calibrated parameters to specify WTP functions. Finally, we demonstrate how these functions can serve as benefit transfer functions, using them to predict WTP for a range of reductions in the severity and/or duration of illness and for different income levels

Benefit Transfer Functions for Avoided Morbidity: A Preference Calibration Approach

Preference calibration has been proposed as a method for improving benefit transfers (Smith et al., 2002). The objective of this method is to develop a WTP function that can be used to predict individuals’ values for a wide range of quality changes. The analyst’s specification of preferences determines the form of this WTP function, and existing empirical studies provide the information that is needed to identify values for its parameters. The purpose of this paper is to explore and illustrate how the logic of preference calibration can be applied in the area of morbidity valuation. Using relatively simple functional forms for utility, we consider both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) illness. To identify values for key preference parameters, we combine information about WTP, health indexes, income, and, in some cases, duration of illness. We then use the calibrated parameters to specify WTP functions. Finally, we demonstrate how these functions can serve as benefit transfer functions, using them to predict WTP for a range of reductions in the severity and/or duration of illness and for different income levels